Skip to main content
3:45 pm
first lady michelle obama delivers remarks at the congressional black caucus foundation awards dinner here in washington. her remarks start live at 7:30 eastern, also on c-span. >> today, millions of students are paying less for college because we finally took on a system that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars using banks and lenders as middlemen. we said, "let's give the money directly to students," and we have been able to help millions more young people get an education. >> we got to make sure our workers have the skills they need for today and that our kids are getting an education that will allow them to compete tomorrow. that means it is time for us to put the kids and their parents and teachers first and the teachers' union behind. its interests are very different. >> the first debate between presidential candidates mitt romney and president barack obama is less than two weeks away, wednesday, october 3.
3:46 pm
"newshour"'s jim lehrer moderates. questions focus on domestic policy. watch engage with c-span, including our live debate preview. post-debate, your reactions, comments, calls, e-mails, tweets. paul was on c-span radio or online at >> national security advisers for president george h. w. bush, george w. bush, and president obama talk about their roles in advising u.s. presidents. they discussed national security challenges in the middle east and asia and focused on the violence in that region. this is an hour and a half. >> thank you very much for that wonderful introduction of the panel and to kind introduction of me. it does remind me of -- i have written here that these are men
3:47 pm
who need no introduction, so my introduction will not be so fulsome of men who do not need that kind of introduction, but i did hear the ceo of ibm wants to introduce a colleague of yours, henry kissinger, that way. henry kissinger came up to the podium and said, "your introduction was far too modest ." so the next time he introduced again and talked about his nobel peace prize and books and best sellers and influence on history and told the whole story about how he thought he needed no introduction, but he thought this time he had to give it because of last time, to which henry kissinger came to the podium and said, cassette and it is true that no man needs an introduction less than i do, but no man appreciates one more -- "it is true that no man needs an
3:48 pm
introduction less than i do, but no man appreciates one more." these men do not need an introduction, but i will say how unusual it is for this audience to have three former national security advisers, two of whom served republicans, one who served a democrat, on the stage. i have to be a little careful here because they are also board members of the atlantic council and therefore, my bosses. this is a week on friday when we will be launching at the atlantic council, the event on national security. general jones is the chairman of the center. steve hadley has been one of the chief instigators of it, so we are very proud of that. i say that -- i also send greetings from another georgetown atlantic council link rory is proud to be here. senator chuck hegel since his
3:49 pm
greetings to you gentlemen. these three men in body american foreign policy at its best. principled, but tough-minded, bipartisan but the size of -- decisive, acting consistently in the u.s. interests, but never ignoring and always including in our calculus' the broader global context and the interests of our friends and allies. i say all that because it is just not to be taken for granted all the time in this town that these kinds of individuals drive, and we are very happy for their public service, which is unique and long-lasting. i also was thinking in this introduction of talking about their years of total advice to u.s. presidents, that i could somehow total it up on an envelope, but it was really impossible because each of these gentlemen advised presidents before they got into office in their various positions, which were quite important, and then also afterward, they are still
3:50 pm
listened to in the highest councils of government. that is why this is such a unique opportunity. i will start with a couple of initial questions, a couple of grounds, and then i will come to the audience. i will go in order that you gentlemen served as national security adviser. i do want to say one thing -- i have had conversations before with these gentlemen about what the job is like. i talked to general jones when he was in office. i said, "general jones, what is it like? what is it like being national security adviser with all these things going on?" he said, "have you ever been to the surface and seen the plate spinner -- have you ever been to the service and seen the -- have
3:51 pm
you ever been to the circus and seen the plate spinner?" steve handley called it a 12- burner stove. but i think what it is is a dramatically changing job. when i asked henry kissinger with the national security adviser does, he went back to the kennedy administration, and he said that when he first started working with the kennedy administration, he had taken a trip to europe, and he was invited to see president kennedy. afterwards, he talked to someone about it and was asked what he told the president, and he told the president he had a lot of problems in europe, and that person said the person knows he has a lot of problems in europe -- problems in syria, iran, the eurozone crisis, issues with the
3:52 pm
south china sea. it is a storm of issues coming out. and in kissinger said, "you need to be useful to the president here you do not tell him a problem. you give him an indication of what we need to do about it because that is what presidents do. you cannot expect him to sit there and ruminate about your definition of the problem." with that, i would like to open with general scowcroft. you said that this was a strategic moment, the likes of which have not seen since the berlin wall. all these men have had these conversations with residents. you are either sitting down with reelected president obama or newly elected governor romney. you have got to describe to him in what way this strategic moment is more important than the berlin wall and how you set your priorities.
3:53 pm
what do you do? get us started with that. here andady to sit listen to you. >> i'm done. [laughter] >> one of the first things i like to say is that the job, when i first got in it, is very different from the job now in this sense -- when i first became national security adviser, the cold war was still on, and the cold war -- that was not the strategy. we had the strategy laid out for us. it was to put our arms around the soviet union and hold it to keep it from breaking out until it disintegrated. that was a given. now, we argued a lot with our friends and our allies and so on about the tactics of how you do this and how you do that in the background -- and in the
3:54 pm
background was the knowledge that if we made a mistake, we could end up in a thermonuclear war. but that was the framework. the strategy was a given. now the strategy is not a given. as a matter of fact, there is probably not a strategy which is all-encompassing for the world we are in now. it is a chaotic world. now we tend to be all tactics and no strategy, and the real problem is how you relate the different tactics to each other. that is one of the principal things. it is all fine to say the we just use a little force here and that was written that problem out, but when you use a little force here, you create other problems that build on themselves. pretty soon, you are dealing with the problems you have created by not thinking ahead
3:55 pm
rather than the ones you are trying to solve. >> let me do a quick follow-up on that. to make this as informal as possible, though i will go down the line here, whenever you want to jump in on something, please do. going back to the point -- strategic moment the likes of which we have not seen since the berlin wall -- is that because there is a shifting of power from the u.s., from the west -- you know all the things that being written -- or how would you describe the shifting strategic moment -- why is it a shifting moment? >> it shifting, first of all, because the soviet union, as this existential threat to everything we believe, is gone. that is why it is no longer the strategic center. but the world is changing even more fundamentally. we still mentally relive -- we
3:56 pm
live in a west failing world, the world of a nation state, those independent units that are truly sovereign and do not depend or do not take orders from everywhere -- the world of nation-state, those independent units that are truly sovereign and do not depend or take orders from anywhere else. the west can no longer do what it assumed it could do for its citizens. it needs to reach out for help. so you have got this system living in an uneasy coexistence with this globalize the world, and you say, "are we losing power?" though the very nature of power is different now than it used to be. you all in your textbooks say, cassette and these are the elements of national power -- economy, this, that, and the other" -- "these are the
3:57 pm
elements of national power -- economy, this, that, and the other," but it is much more complicated now. >> i would add that the concept of what makes up national security has changed. it is a much broader field now. you have to deal with economic issues. you have to deal with cybersecurity. you have to deal with a world that is largely asymmetric. as we play it back on the 20th century, which was not that long ago, you almost yearn for the ordered ways of the 20th century. we had essentially a bipolar world, two different ideologies. we build institutions that were responsive to the world in that construct. all of a sudden, the world has changed dramatically. a lot of the threats that face us and will face you -- the challenges are very asymmetric. how do you respond to non-state actors, for example?
3:58 pm
they are not part of the united nations. they do not deal symmetrically with the world as it is. so you have to understand the environment that you are in. as you are an incoming administration, you really have to get about the job of understanding that there is a difference between campaigning and governing very quickly. the national security council is probably the first instrument of government that manages the interagency process in such a way that you do not miss a beat because you do not have much time to get ready. the asymmetric nation it -- nature of the world, the expanded notion of what constitutes national security is much more the whole of government involvement. and that gets to, i think -- and we can talk about this if you like, but it gets to a different way in which the united states
3:59 pm
engages in the 21st century with the world as it is, not as it was. >> general jones, you said that great powers decline when they do not address the problems they have. i think that is a wonderful, wonderful statement. does that mean -- we look at political polarization. we look at the fiscal crisis. you see a presidential campaign producing perhaps more heat than light on these issues. does that mean -- and you said this before -- that the key right now is getting our own house in order, that we have to step back a little bit from international and foreign engagement? or, as president obama has said, we have to do nation-building at home to again reestablish ourselves? what is your view on that? >> i think that it is true that if you look at -- go back to the dominant countries or civilizations, that eventually,
4:00 pm
they all come to an end for one reason or another. my observation is that one of the reasons they come to an end or the decline is because the world has changed, the environment has changed, and they have tried to hang on to the old model too long without adjusting to the new one. that is the challenge that faces us. we are, in my view, in a position right now of potentially great historical consequences because cuts of our own internal economic situation. the help of which drives a lot of cool we are in rest of the world. until you get your own house in order, it is hard to manage to influence the world. he cannot preach to others how to do it quite effectively. i really believe this is a historical moment for the united states because so goes the
4:01 pm
economy, so goes everything else. to your point about my talk that one in asia can bring itself to do those things it knows it must do, in order to advance its future, then you have the first step of a decline in terms of influence. i am an optimist. i think regardless of how precarious our situation is, i think we've always risen to the location. i do not subscribe to the inevitability of american decline which i've heard every 10 years since i was old enough to know what sputnik meant flying around the world. it is a difficult moment. in in terms of national security, we have to do the things we know we must do.
4:02 pm
>> thank you. i think to have a former allied commander, you are focusing on economic competitiveness issues as an element of national security. it is a very interesting point. having just come back from europe, our friends are telling me that they see this as the most important election for one of the most important since world war ii for the united states about because of who would be elected but what kind of america will express itself on the world stage. if you look at this question, of it is a big strategic shift. ari at an inflection point.
4:03 pm
what kind of global leadership would you say? >> we have focused a lot on challenges. i had the job for president bush to come in seven or eight minutes after 7 in the morning and tell him about the challenges that occurred overnight. did the trick for the president is to let him know there is a problem without sending him into the overhead at 10 after 7:00 in the morning. i would say there are a couple of challenges that have emerged. that is a code for "crisis." the president was say " haldy, withing every challenge there is
4:04 pm
an opportunity for this country. your job is to find that and capitalize on it. a going. get going. they are also opportunities for us to shape events and put policies in place that will shape events and lead to a better future. the problem that brent described that the modern national security adviser has, there are so many challenges coming into the white house the you could spend all of your time reacting to events and not enough time putting in place policies that will shape events and therefore avoid crises in future. that is an issue of allocation of time and shropshire.
4:05 pm
-- structure. the need to get their challenges and opportunities. he needs to think about reacting to events in shaping events, not just reacting. i think we need to look at the structures of national security. if it is harnessing all elements of power and using the private sector, and universities and corporations are trying to conduct that symphony in situ this. we do not have structures that allow us to do that particularly well. we need to change our structure. sometimes you have to place the
4:06 pm
bet. you have to be willing to make some big changes. summit leaders faced the most significant challenges ever. we honor these men because they had a vision. they made some major institutional changes, a whole series of global institutions that allowed us to shape the future. that is the challenge for a new president, >> we are in a starkly compare bill moment. -- in a historically comparative a moment. >> the elements for the united states for being in a position to shape those events is there own authority. that is dependent on us solving
4:07 pm
our political problem that prevents us getting our house in order. that is the source of our influence. it is why allies rely on us, friends and others want to trade with us. it is a prerequisite to being in a position to shape the future. it is not that hard. one of the things that we need to send to you is this can be a very hopeful future for you. i will conclude with one remark. bob was out in august. he said something interesting. i was talking to a european that i respect. he said "the united states is one of the budget deal way from a return to global influence and
4:08 pm
prosperity." you have shale oil, it cheap energy, manufacturing. it will put people to work. you need to solve this political problem and show the world. then get busy trying to shape the future. that is really what the president need to do. >> do you agree this of the caliber 1947/1949? >> similar but different. the chinese cannot do it. the russians cannot do it. the europeans may be eventually can. we are the only ones who could
4:09 pm
vocalize the world behind great enterprises. the world desperately need it. there is no obvious direction to go now other than how do you improve man and his relationship to other men on the environment? we're the only ones who can do that. we cannot do it if we do not put our house in order. >> i think that american leadership in the 21st century is going to probably take a little bit different shape than it had in the 20th century. i think it is normal. it is responsive to the environment that we face. for example, i think that the
4:10 pm
military response will probably not be the only instrument of choice. not the first instrument of choice. we are entering a time where the some whole of nation approach to helping solve world problems is going to be upon us. the nine states is really the only country that can do this. -- the united states is the only country that can do this. we have an enormously capable private sector. there are a lot of things that could be dealt with in our government, particularly in the legislature or, to help american companies be more competitive. i would say you are entering into an age of competitiveness. it is national. it is personal. the ability to compete in this
4:11 pm
much smaller, rapidly spinning world, to operate within the board tax of social media -- for text of social media -- vortex a social media means that our decision process will not have the luxury time. it'll have to be quick. we're going to have to be agile and responsive. did the private sector will be extremely important. the gap that exists is starkly between the public and private sector will have to be tightened. we are competing against many countries where there is no gap. the private and public sector are in complete harmony. some of these are democracies as well. it is just a different style that we have already seen many instances where the synergy
4:12 pm
between closely coordinated public and private sector works to our advantage. i also think the third leg is going to be other institutions like ngos and the like, universities. you can dial up a response packet to a particular set of events that is not necessarily mean that it always has to be military. the three elements for me of any engagement will be security and also economic element, and thirdly, the government's role of law to help developing countries do the things that they must do in order to be successful. energy to me is a tremendous national security issue that has been on addressed by any administration since president nixon. we have always talked about it.
4:13 pm
we have lamented about it. we generally react to the price of oil and gas at the pop. when it goes down, we forget about it. if you wanted to make a change at the world, it energy is one of the areas where american leadership could be dominant for the foreseeable future. it makes sense to help the developing world skip that stage and get to clean energy and the like. the united states has more of everything within our borders. we have no national energy strategy. the gap is still too much. >> let me take this from the macro to the microbe.
4:14 pm
after this we will go to the audience. the macro is now. it is the tragic killing of our ambassador to libya. it is the fire some of anti- american rage that followed here and there. it is the president turning to you and saying what do i do about syria, what do i do about iran? in a very micra sense, it is focused particularly on syria on this firestorm of the events going on. and so we have the opportunities, that is the challenge. >> good luck. >> i am listening. >> these are very difficult
4:15 pm
challenges, particularly after of ouragic death after th ambassador and other loyal. we have to pull together. i think, and i continue to be reluctant to criticize his administration, because i have some appreciation of the problems. it is this issue between crisis management and shaping events. yes, we are in a time where this is a pretext of the tape that was made in the united states. a lot of people are expressing rage. a lot of that is extremist groups taking advantage of an opportunity to try to demonstrate against the united states and to take some fairly moderate governments that are post-revolutionary in middle east that want to work with the united states and to try to
4:16 pm
shove them away from us. the worst reaction would be for us to pull away from the middle east. we need to engage the middle east. fashionable for people to say the united states does not have much influence. we have a lot of influence. we do have influence. there is no excuse not to do it to try to shape a better future. the real thing i'm worried about is what is going on in syria. it does been going on for seven months. it is becoming increasingly violent, it increasingly secretary and and opening the door for all kited that loves to exploit chaos for its own agenda. -- and al qaeda that lets to exploit chaos for its own agenda. the war not only to stabilizes syria but it destabilizes
4:17 pm
lebanon, iraq, jordon, and potentially turkey. the opportunity is quite frankly to move with countries in region like turkey and jordan and others who are waiting for u.s. leadership to bring an end to assad in syria and bring an end to that regime sooner. the longer it goes, the more people die, the more secretary and it is, the more it upsets the neighborhood. the question is how to do it. we can talk about it. i think the way to do it is to empower the people that are fighting for their future and give them the weapons so that they can topple this regime themselves. i think the mindset that any president needs to have is this is not just a single crisis management situation.
4:18 pm
we handle. we handled libya and syria. this runs the risk of a meltdown in the middle east and is a strategic challenge. it is also a strategic opportunity to try to further emphasize and establish yet another example where suny and shia and kurds and others are working together to find a common future. that is what the middle east needs. for hundreds of years, the models has been oppression. that will not work. that will not bring stability or a better life for folks. we have an opportunity to establish a different model. we started that in iraq. we need to start that in syria and bring this to an end. >> i agree with steve. one of my favorites savings is a
4:19 pm
virtual presence is an absence. if you think about how you want these things to come out, and we have an interest in that, you have to understand that you cannot sit back. hope is not a strategy. since the fall of iran, party- line in middle east, -- particularly in the middle east, the people who have emerged from these dictators are generally the people who are the best organized. the people who are best organized are generally radical. if you do not want to go through another bad period, you need to do things the counter that reality. they are the best organizers. i think his point about working with friends and allies in the region you also have significant equities, the presence of the
4:20 pm
united states with these allies can bring back and help rekindle the israeli/turkish relationship which would be instrumental. i do think that the syrian question is particularly important because of what it means with regard to iran and its future. the new syria that gives hope for its people and more freedom and opportunity would be devastating for the iranian goals and aspirations. i think that we need to see more international involvements, more assistance to the people who are fighting for this ideal. when the day comes that is saw
4:21 pm
sad t office one -- asa leaves office, he could be too little too late. >> there is no u.n. security council resolution. it is a different situation for a lot of reasons. then libya, a country tired of afghanistan and iraq. you're talking to the president of the united states. the stakes have been outlined very dramatically. what does he practically do not close. ? what context should he viewed it? >> that is the fundamental question. it to be nice if syria were as compact -- it would be nice if syria were as compact that the answers are obvious. i do not think they are.
4:22 pm
if assad left tomorrow, you would not have a very different syria. syria and lebanon are the most intermix countries possible in world ethnically, religiously. they are very complicated. guess you have a she insurgents. that goes to the turks attitude, the rockies attitude. they're not all on the same site. it is not obvious to we want to come out ahead. the majority is about 600. they're very different kinds. the palestinian refugees in in syria. a lot to do not want the sunnis to win.
4:23 pm
the assad regime had been more protective of them that the sudanese work. it is extremely complicated. i think we need to talk more seriously with the russians. when i first joined the nse, the russians were dominated over half the middle eastern countries. now they're down to one. if they lose a saw, they are finished. they have an equity in preserving some of their position. theoretically, they ought to be willing to help. i think it is complicated.
4:24 pm
we are to have iraq. we have afghanistan. we do not need another one. >> you not go further than where the president obama administration is now? >> i would go further. i think we need to go a lot further. with the turks. what they need is a huge amount of help with over 100,000 refugees. >> i agree. he has described the problem in syria very well. the outcome is going to increasingly be worse. the risk of violence goes up. the only solution i can see, and this is where the opportunity is, for is you have to work with the opposition.
4:25 pm
the demonstration is trying to do this. it is very frustrating work. you have to convince them that they need to include representatives come and give them a general role in having a message to syrian society that they have a place for all minorities. they go down with assad, it will make their inclusion difficult. is this hard work? absolutely. there is no real alternative. if we leave it alone, it will descend appeared on the russian point, i think he is right. we need a tactical shift. right now besought the things the russians and chinese can save him -- assad thinks the russians and chinese can save him. the president needs to say i am not dealing with the security
4:26 pm
council. i'm going to do with the countries in the region. we're going to deal with assad. it will help cause some of these groups to break away from assad and may bring the russians to their senses. was the train gets moving, there's the question of opening the door back for the russians to come in. maybe they can be part of a solution. for the moment, we have to break the lock with the russians and chinese. they are impeding any action. my analysis is the longer this goes, the worse it gets. the more out of control the solution. is this a hard problem? absolutely. it is not going to get any easier just leaving it on the table. >> i should have mentioned the new envoy, one of the wisest men
4:27 pm
i know. i think we ought to be looking for ways we can help him to maybe get a cease-fire. or what ever he thinks and listen to his judgment. he's out there now talking to both sides to see what it fear is -- what there is that we are missing that we do not have now. >> this is an important question. i just want to make sure and clear that i do not advocate military intervention in this. >> including the no-fly zone. >> i am not talking about putting food on the ground. -- boots on the ground.
4:28 pm
when the united nations proves itself to be ineffective as it has, in my view, the united states has a moral obligation to find another solution. however temporary it might be. to steve's point about opportunities, there is a tremendous opportunity here for the united states to work with the modern arab countries. there is opportunity to work with nato allies and in turkey or to bring israel into the equation. you have to do that skillfully. do not think that there would not the willingness to do that on a quiet level. to wait and let the thing was that size -- metastasize even more is a big mistake. on the humanitarian side, i thought after the libya operation a great move would have taken the u.s. as hope and
4:29 pm
taken it off the coast of libya and fly out any of the civilians who were maimed in the fighting. that is a good thing for the refuge g's in syria. -- refugees in syria. i do not think a great nation with privilege and leadership can sit back and watch this thing escalate like this. >> thank you so much. let me go to the audience. i think the way it works is people stand in front of the microphones. if you identify yourself, do please put it? at the end of whatever short statement he may make. -- put a question mark at the end of whatever short statement you may make. this is the macro thinking of where the world is in the way of my career drilling down on an
4:30 pm
issue that is very real -- micro driving down on an issue that is very real. you cannot just write a paper about it. you actually have to decide you have no option. even in decision is a decision in the way. at i'm a master's candidates the computer studies program. he spoke to my class years ago. it has been mentioned that al qaeda has killed one of our ambassadors and launching attacks appeared the number-one book selling in america this week is written by one of the seals on the osama bin laden raid. the joint operations command and not even exist. in 98, stephen wrote this book that sandy berger would have
4:31 pm
authorized to kill osama bin laden because there's a different understanding about the use of force in that situation. since then, what they have been the advisor, they are addressing this. can you please talk about the role that direct action took while you were the national security advisor, how you advise them, and what you think we should do with that particular tactic in addressing this global threat that we face all over the world? >> since you're the most recent serving. steve was at the outset of that. i will be happy to follow. >> the 9/11 commission actually
4:32 pm
found that president obama had authorized the cia to use legal authorities to get osama bin laden. you can look at that. it is important. i want to do justice to the history. we used to call this war on terror. it has been the project now of three administrations. a lot goes back to what then vice president bush did. this is a continuity over a lot of administrations. the framework of president bush was take the fight to the enemy, it treat those who harbor terrorists on the same terms, and at the same time promote social justice as an alternative to this. it gives people some hope rather
4:33 pm
than despair. and to involve over 80 countries in that effort. direct action has a role to play, but it is a piece of an overall strategy. that is how it has to be seen. it is a new instrument. starting in iraq. it is remarkable with what has now been achieved. i would like to hear general jones on this. it offers an opportunity that we may, in places like yemen and somalia, face terrorist without having to do the kind of thing that we did in afghanistan and iraq. their intelligence read it through intelligence sharing, strengthening forces, and law
4:34 pm
enforcement, helping local governments give legitimacy among their people call sharing intelligence and doing some operation through remote beagles. -- vehicles. there may be a way to keep the country safe using these different set of tools and places like yemen and somalia. that is an evolution in the strategy of how we deal with these problems momentarily. i will go back to general jones. he was the guy in the hot seat after i left. >> in a perfect world, you would like to have all of your allies agree with what you do in give you permission to do whatever it is you think needs to be done. it is not a perfect world, unfortunately. the direct action admissions have a place but nobody should
4:35 pm
make the mistake of thinking it is a panacea for a long-term solution. it is not very strategic. it is very tactical. while we can marvel at the precision that has been achieved in last 10 or 15 years, and steve is right about the clinton administration and i happen to be serving in it for a secretary of defense, osama bin laden was clearly someone that if we have the position we might have done something different. there's the potential for mass casualties. we did not always take advantage of it. today is a different day. to the instrument, i think you
4:36 pm
incorporated into your overall strategy and how you deal with sovereign nations so that if you do use it, it is in their benefit as well. in the case of pakistan, which was easily my biggest frustration with daschle security, we can never predict with national security, we could never get a false sense of -- which is easily my biggest frustration with national security, we could never protecpredict what they would dr not do. they could not help us by eliminating the safe havens and the leaders that witwent with i. when it became clear that they were not going to, in order to reduce the number of americans
4:37 pm
that were being killed and allies that were being killed in afghanistan, we really had no choice but to go after the leadership in very tactical targets with tremendous success. you want to get it within the envelope a sovereign nation to sovereign nation relationships and not have to resort to taking things into your own hands that the open to international criticism. ,> what i'm going to try to do keep your question short. if you could say he would like to address it to, we will see if we can get more back and forth. >> you already mentioned pakistan. how with the challenges for a new republican government or democratic government differed
4:38 pm
in dealing with pakistan giving in next year's it is expected the government and industry leadership for pakistan would change? maybe you could comment on the challenges. >> say that one more time. >> the leadership of pakistan is expected to change next year. where do you see the direction of the u.s. relationships going with those expected changes? >> the step down of the general? >> there will be presidential elections. >> right. for by standpoint, predict from my standpoint, i would hope in the interest -- from my standpoint, i would hope in the interest of pakistan that pakistan find a way to bring in an era of civilian leadership in
4:39 pm
which the military plays its proper but subordinate role. my experience with my dealings with pakistan was that is not the case. the civilian leadership to be very well-intentioned. the military was certainly going to do exactly what it wanted to do. as i said, it was my personal biggest frustration. i think had we been able to - except what it is i think the rest of the world was offering, particular the united states, it would have been transformed within a few years. much of the economic situation in pakistan would benefit the pakistani people. we would be in a different place in pakistan and afghanistan. that was thought achieved.
4:40 pm
with the change there is hope. -- that was not achieved. what changes there is hope. generation a civilian leaders will assert that control. >> california school of foreign service. i am wondering where the u.s. should draw the line in terms of humanitarian intervention. we have a history of doing it in the balkans and libya. where do we draw that line deciding if we should intervene? >> word you draw the line in response ability to protect humanitarian intervention? >> that is a very good question. the u.n. has come close to declaring their responsibility to protect its as a world mandate, but the responsibility
4:41 pm
to protect that is when a country went on leadership. that is when the country cannot or protect its situation. that is a very appealing notion. unfortunately, article two says that nothing in this charter shall be right of the organization to interfere in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of its members. we have a fundamental conflict here. between the charter itself and this new law that is developing. we need to work on that. we need to clarify what it means and how it means it. i think it is a step forward.
4:42 pm
i think it is ill-defined and lead to confusion. >> i agree. >> i am a senior. my question has to do with u.s. leadership in the world. your comments have implied that the u.s. needs to be the leader of the world for some one reason. if you look around, and number of countries actively oppose our leadership. at what point do you check our extremely aggressive approach to the world and maybe focus on the problems that are focused here ?t home deck >> we need to fix the problems here at home to have a more prosperous society and also because they are a foundation
4:43 pm
for our world. there is no conflict. your priority is your top domestic priority and top national security priority is the same thing, fix the same thing and ended the deficit. there is some reallocation in the world in terms of power and influence. it is beginning to be reflected in global institutions. the g-20 include additional countries replacing the g-7 eight. that is all to the good. -- or g-*.
4:44 pm
8. that is all about the good. i used to say, these institutions are terrific institutions. they have some capability. there are forms for bringing the nations of the world to gather on a problem. all of these institutions need to be animated by the energy and leadership of their individual country members. preeminently, that tends to be the united states and a few others. yes there is some real orientation. yes, there needs to be strengthening of institutions. yes countries like china and brazil needs to be given a bigger role. they need to check leadership from within. there are not a lot of countries you are trusted to provide that leadership. that is why even though there is
4:45 pm
a diffusion of power in the world, even though that will change how the united states leads the world, i think he is right. i think general jones would agree. we need to get our house in order for purposes so that we can help provide leadership to the international community. >> your attitude is understandable. the world does not appreciate it. let's take care of our cells. we're not about leadership in the world as an altruistic thing. it is in the americans' interest to have a role which sustains the kind of things we believe in which we can trade with, which helps america's prosperity. this leadership is not something we bestow on the world. we are the only ones that can do it. it is very essential to america's well doing that we do
4:46 pm
it. >> thank you for the question. >> senior for the school of foreign service. a follow up question. america has created an international system that is more beneficial to limited democracy. it has done so through leadership in a wide variety of spectrums. it will continue to do so in the coming decades. it it seems inevitable for a lot of reasons that american economic dominance will not continue in the same way. america will not be able to continue to afford to fight tb 0 military operations at the same time. does america's global leadership depends on this t? >> let me add to that question. i just returned from the gulf. i saw this remarkable airbase
4:47 pm
where american powers are powerful. he talked to officials and they say we know you are going to be there in times of war. we have a security guarantee. but right now we need you engage every day in a much different way. we do not think you are. we picking up that question and also taking it. >> it is an excellent question. it really does pose the challenge of whether we put it into a different kind of engagement. i do not think the american military is going to play the same role it did in the 20th century. hopefully there is not want to be another global war. there is going to be an element of projecting influence and the like.
4:48 pm
i think that it is likely, i do a lot to traveling in different parts of the world. i am privileged to meet with a rabat of heads of state in different government. -- with the heads of state and a different government. you guys have done so much. we do not see you anymore. we see chinese companies coming in and just buying up all the natural resources, a getting contracts. where is america? that bothers me a little bit. if that is the case, and i think in some parts of the world it is, it means that we are not competing adequately enough. i think that is part of the
4:49 pm
reshaping of our response package. you can respond with public- sector involvement. you can respond with private sector involvement. depending on what you're trying to do, and the strategy can be shaped appropriately. you should be able to call on those things and harmonize them. this is a different model than in the 20th century where we are so dominant that you could actually not pay much attention to the ministry because they did all fine by themselves. that is not the case. you have a china were the pride of policy is slammed together. the decisions at the maker of very rapid pier and we need to
4:50 pm
do a lot of things to enable the americas to be the giants again. it will be very different than i think than having the world's most powerful armed forces by a factor of 12. >> good afternoon. i not teach at the naval academy. since you have served on both sides of the divide, has national --- >> [inaudible] >> what were your relationships like with senior uniformed? did you think there were more koppers i ive or corporativ
4:51 pm
cooperative? >> that is a very hard question to answer. when i became national security adviser i retired from the military. partly a matter principal and partly a matter of u.s. law at that time. [laughter] i like to think that there was a level of comfort on the part of the military that might not have been there had i not had a military background. i do not know. and never asked back. i never saw it we did i never asked that. and never saw support -- i never
4:52 pm
asked that. i never asked for support of the military outside of that role. it is a question i think that is outsidemore but people than inside. >> i thought it was a plus in terms of your ability to understand the world and certainly how our military culture things about it. everyday i dealt with the secretary of defense. normally when secretary gates came to the white house brought the chairman of the joint chiefs with him. that was his call. he did not have to do that. that is what he did.
4:53 pm
when i pick up the telephone to call pipa de gaulle, i did not call 8 -- to call the pentagon, i cannot call a colleague and and a porn position to get a military viewpoint. in a militaryto position to get a military viewpoint. it cannot spend 40 years in uniform and not be colored a little bit by your experience. i generally factored that in. i did not carve out a special relationship. >> do you feel any different? >> i dealt with the secretary of defense. if he told me i should deal directly with the chairmen i
4:54 pm
would. i would never do it without having done so. i made it a practice to never call out to the field to come back and commanders. that was reaching into the chain of command. the national security adviser is not in the chain of command. i think that is right. military experience helps to understand what you're hearing. the patterns of the action are pretty well established. they're consistent with the notion of civilian control. the military's one of the things that makes us different in pakistan, the strength of our system. >> thank you for the question. >> i'm a sophomore in the school of foreign service. i want to shift the focus to asia. the issues concerning china and its neighbors are seen as the
4:55 pm
issue of a rising power challenging in existing power, china challenging the united states. how locked are we not go looking at the situation in that framework? is there any other realistic way we can tackle the issue we are facing in a different framework without looking at china as an adversary? is that realistic/ ? >> maybe you can pick that up and at the same time deal with south china's see issues -- sea issues. >> i think our relationship with china need to be looked at in the light of the new world, not the 20th century world. i do not think this is a zero sum game between us and the
4:56 pm
chinese. they are a rising power. they have had enormous economic success. they also have enormous political problems. all kinds of problems. as you look at the issues around the world, we are not fundamentally at loggerheads on any of them. this is a relationship where we did not used to see the chinese anywhere. when nixon went to china in 1972, we had no contact except for the offshore islands. we had no contact with them at all. that developed only gradually. now we read into them and all kinds of different areas.
4:57 pm
-- we run into them in all kinds of different areas. we have different histories, different cultures, different methods of thinking. we're very different people. i do not see be irreconcilable ility when we look rising powers like german in the 1940's. i do not think we ought to look at it in that way. the south china sea is a very interesting and complicated issue. it came up a couple of years ago. it is not clear exactly who brought it up. whether we did or the chinese did. the issue relates to a line that the chinese drew in the area as
4:58 pm
being a chinese border and modern law as how you differentiate territory as sovereign territory, as your exclusive economic zone and other kinds of things. it is a very complicated issue. we are not taking a position on it. what we're saying is that it needs to be worked out by the parties. the chinese want to work it out bilaterally. they are the big guy. this is a part of a minuet between the chinese growing self-confidence and wanting to assert themselves and their sovereignty farther from their shores and us insisting on
4:59 pm
freedom of the seas and rites of passage and so on. i think it is not a fundamental issue. it could become a very vexatious issue if it is not carefully handled. i believe that we can handle it carefully. we will handle it carefully. it would be helpful if the u.s. senate would ratify the law of the sea convention because we have no standing right now. >> i like to completely agree with general scowcroft. when i heard the term "pivot toward asia" i turned. words are important. they interpret it it one way.
5:00 pm
if you are an african leader or european ourself american, you were saying to a globally influential early nation. it causes all kinds of think tank business. what does that mean? the atlantic council likes that. keeps them employed. >> if it does carry -- the new word now is rebalance. but the pivot is out of the back. -- out of the bag. but it is important. words are important. sometimes actions speak louder than words. i also want to say is a former georgetown basketball player, general jones knows about it.
5:01 pm
-- about pivot. >> i know a lot about bench time, too. [laughter] >> if chinese last year asked me to explain to him but pitted really means -- what pivot means in english. >> this question is relevant to years back -- two year back with the ground burning in florida and its effect. in light of the killing of chris stevens, is there a point that as a national security adviser you with a bias a curtailing -- you would advise a curtailing of certain forms of our freedoms of expression to protect the lives
5:02 pm
of americans abroad? >> i say this not as a constitutional lawyer or an expert of freedom of speech but common sense laws -- we always used to stay freedom of speech does not allow you to yell fighter in a crowded theater. -- fire in a crowded theater. what we saw last week is exactly that. we have to figure out as a country in the context of the new media. how do we draw that line between protected speech and speech that is released by her in a theater and will put innocent lives at risk? -- that is really fire in a theater and will put innocent lives at risk? >> we have time for maybe two more questions here >> thank you for being here today. i am a first-year in the mffs
5:03 pm
riser program. -- graduate program. general jones, you talk a lot about needing to adjust this new model. given the changing balance of power relationships, particularly in places like east asia, how sustainable do you think our current security arrangements are? things like mutual defense treaty is -- treaties? if there are not sustainable, how can we do so in a pragmatic way without letting our allies feel like we are abandoning them? >> i will pick up the last question. >> it is interesting that one of the realities of what is going on in asia right now or countries like the philippines who asked us to leave not too
5:04 pm
long ago are now -- almost the entire filipino government came to washington recently to ask us to come back. south vietnam, or vietnam -- north and south. i am sorry, i am dating myself a little bit here. [laughter] vietnam is a former adversary. we are worried about the lives of china and asked us to consider more engagement. taiwan has always been of that mind. hat you're seeing with this pivot and now is reaction on the global playing field that would
5:05 pm
tend to lead me to conclude that we are -- could be in an enviable position of redefining and rewriting some of these treaties but at least given a more meaning. i agree with my -- we agree on the same thing. the likelihood of a major conflict with china and in the other countries is probably pretty slim but the likelihood of a brush fire challenge that has to be responded to is actually important. bein there is a deterrent the works both ways. we are into a period of much more negotiations with maybe some in asia with some occasional spikes to make sure
5:06 pm
those are just brush fires and not for is buyers eric >> was our on-site chinese officials. i made an impassioned plea that our existing military alliances had been a force of stability in the region had facilitated the peaceful rise of china. at the end he said, you are right. i'm confident that was not in the reporting cable that went back to beijing but it is nonetheless true. there will be some adjustment in these relationships. i think they continue to be an element of stability in asia. >> last question. i am a senior. a question for general jones regarding iran. do you believe the obama administration should set clear red lines regarding iran's nuclear program and if so, what should they be? >>[laughter]
5:07 pm
>> if you go back and look at the president's pronouncement on this issue even in 2009, you can see where he was very clear in terms of the national purpose and the national goal. to my knowledge, that has not changed. i think our policy is informed by pretty good intelligence and thatit's quite possible the sanctions -- first of all, i think the sections are having an effect. because the regime to come back to the iaea even though the talks have not amounted to much. a country like turkey, for example, which originally in
5:08 pm
2010 was champing the decamping -- championing the iranian position has seen the light. you have to be careful about how you articulate your red lines. there is no question in my mind where our policy is. and there's no question that a nuclear weapons capable iran is a clear danger to its neighbors. they have said so. it is a country that would probably trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east. and a country that would clearly probably export that technology to non-staet actors. in my view, non-state actors having weapons of mass destruction changes the world that we live in. i'm comfortable with what i hear
5:09 pm
from our government. i think we are -- we have work on this. we worked very, very assiduously with our friends and allies. we give it a good shot in 2009 to let iran declare itself and to show itself to be reasonable if they wish to be reasonable. they have not shown that. but i do think that there are still some options that can be played out before we get to any kind of connecticut's state. -- of kinetic stage. >> i agree completely. >> i am pessimistic. at think we should play out options. i am pessimistic and ivory that at this time next year, we will be kind of out of options.
5:10 pm
-- and i worry that at this time next year, we will be out of options. >> that may be the case. we have changed the whole issue of iranian missile -- nuclear- weapons for anybody else was ever had nuclear weapons. we never have this argument in pakistan got its weapons. we had a big problem with india but it was separate. we need to be careful how we proceed here. >> if i could come back to a central point here -- that is that the middle east is still -- the israeli, palestinian questions -- is still the big beenthat has neer beeever moved.
5:11 pm
the fallout from any progress in solving this problem, the ripple effect, would affect everything else going on in the world. i think the danger of the prime minister's position in israel is that he is thinking tactically, he is thinking regionally and he is not thinking strategically. you have three of the former employee told members of the government, the chief of staff of the army and others, all left the government and are openly critical of the prime minister's position vis-a-vis striking iran. the danger is you can be stampeded into doing something that would have no basis.
5:12 pm
a political forcing function that would cause a cataclysmic regional war. >> we need to be thoughtful, not impetuous. >> that's right. >> i think that is a great line to end on. so with that, general jones has not said the 21st century will not be a center where you can sit back and take a lot of time making decisions. because of the amount of issues we face every day, it is daunting to think he can take time to reflect but you have to. i think what you really allow us to do, the three of you, is reflected not only on the immediacy of some of these issues and the difficulty in solving them but also the underlying requirement to come up with a strategy and the way of thinking about this
5:13 pm
remarkably changed world we live in in. on behalf of georgetown, thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> homeland security chairman joe lieberman join us tomorrow on our newsmakers program. he talks about the attack a u.s. diplomat in bangkok the, libya, terrorist threats against the united states and also look at the future of cyber security legislation. he is retiring at the end of this year. join us for his interview tomorrow morning at ten in eastern. next week, the league a
5:14 pm
calderon -- felipe calderon. he -- his term as president and the end of december when the president-elect will replace them. our live coverage of the mexican president begins monday morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span-2 -- on c-span2. in the weekly addresses, president obama urged members of the house of representatives to act quickly in passing legislation that would create jobs and boost the economy when they resume in november. and senator jeff sessions criticize democrats in the senate on their approach to government spending. >> hi, everybody. last week without much fanfare, members of the house of representatives bank a gavel, turned out the lights and rushed home. declaring their work finished for now. if that frustrates you, it
5:15 pm
should because their work is not finished. when a skip town, members of congress left a budget proposals sitting on the table. action that would create jobs, boost our economy and shrink the middle-class security. these ideas have been around for months. the american people want to see them passed. but apparently some members of congress are more worried about their jobs in their paychecks this campaign season than they are about yours. if congress had done the right thing, we would be on our way to having a veteran's job score that helps returning heroes find works as cops and firefighters in communities across the country. these men and women have made incredible sacrifices. they should not have to worry about finding a job when they get home. last week, republicans voted down the left. we would have made necessary reforms to give our rural
5:16 pm
communities of long-term certainty. so far, republicans in congress have dragged their feet and now they're gone. right now congress has acted, -- if congress acted, homeowners could save $3,000 extra a year on their home mortgages. instead, republicans in congress decided that working families could wait. now they will have to wait a little longer. if congress had listened to you, they would've given 98% of americans and 97% of small- business owners a guarantee that your taxes will not go up next year by a single dime. this is something we all agree on. it should have gotten done a long time ago but republicans in congress have refused to budge. the are holding tax cut for 98% of americans hostage until we pass tax cut for the wealthiest percent -- 2% of america. now people are left wondering what their tax bill will look like next year. all of these ideas would strengthen our economy and help
5:17 pm
the middle class right now. all of them are supported by democrats, republicans, and independence. there is no reason to wait. that is why after going on and listening to their constituents for a few weeks, members of congress should come back and a member and do this work. they should do the right thing for veterans and farmers, for responsible home owners and small businesses. for americans everywhere horton trying to get ahead. if you agree with me -- who are just trying to get ahead. if you agree with me, tell your members of congress they cannot afford to wait any longer. if you see them campaigning back home, tell the in person. there has been enough talk and it is time for action. that is what you deserve and that is what it will take to move this country forward. thanks and have a wonderful weekend. >> hello. i am jeff sessions, united states senator from alabama and the ranking republican on the senate budget committee. before entering politics, i was a federal prosecutor. i tried many cases and spoke to
5:18 pm
many juries. the billions of our legal system -- the brilliance of our legal system is that it places judgment in the hands of 12 complete strangers from all walks of life, to weigh the evidence and reach an impartial verdict. our democracy works much the same. voters in the arguments, with the evidence, then go to the ballot and render a verdict. as a prosecutor, i learned to trust the wisdom of these everyday citizens. i also learned jurors what the facts. today michael is to present to you the facts -- today my goal is to prevent you the facts as directly as i can. americans sacrificed to pay their bills then watched federal workers threw lavish parties on their times. they hear warnings of a debt crisis and yet learned that we still borrow nearly $4 billion a
5:19 pm
day. they send their tax dollars to washington on the hope those dollars will be widely guarded and then discover that those dollars have been lost and wasted and the beast. they balance their family budgets only to find out the united states senate on the democrats control will not even bring a budget plan to the senate floor. the american people see the financial chaos. they know it must stop. they know their families are at risk and that their country is in danger. yet the president does not rally the nation to action. instead he said our debt course is nothing to worry about. he continues to insist his budget plan will pay down the debt. this is the pivotal question of our time. this is a question on which our future depends. does the president's plan pay down our debt or does it lead our nation on a certain path to rifai -- to financial disaster?
5:20 pm
let's review the facts. the pay down the debt requires a surplus. under the president's budget, there is never a surplus. the single lowest annual deficit is $543 billion. it grows in the 10th year. despite $1.8 trillion in ew taxes, his budget adds $11 trillion to the debt overall. the interest alone on our debt would exceed the defense spending in seven years. these are not my numbers. they come on the tables in the president's own budget document that he printed and sent to congress. for the president to say his plan will pay down the debt is one of the greatest financial misrepresentations ever made to the american people. adding to the chaos, the senate
5:21 pm
democrat majority decided to adjourn to november, having failed to meet its most basic obligations. for the last three years, in a time of national crisis, senate democrats have deliberately violated the legal requirement to produce a budget plan. pat and i ask the american people to send them one more dime -- how can they asked the american people to send them one more dime in illegal taxes when they cannot write a financial plan and tell how that money will be spent? they failed to pass a single annual appropriations bill. not once, but twice. the first time, a single spending bill was not passed in senate history. it would not even bring up the crucial national defense authorization bill for the first time in 50 years. it presented no plans -- they present and no plans to prevent the tax hikes or the fiscal
5:22 pm
cliff. all of these failures create uncertainty and weaken the economy. people should know that the republican-led house, on the other hand, it met its obligations. it passed a budget to rescue america from a debt crisis compared to the president's plan, the house but to achieve it $2.30 trillion in greater depth as a bang -- deficit- reduction. if given the chance, republicans will get this government under control. and republican senate will pass a budget. failure is not an option. we believe in a better way forward. a way that brings us closer to our heritage as a nation. we believe in growing the economy, not the bureaucracy. we believe in helping more people live good and prosperous lives. we believe in preventing a
5:23 pm
safety net from becoming a restraint. the belief in lifting people on to the employment rolls instead of leaving them on the welfare rolls and we believe compassion cannot be defined by how much money the government spends on poverty but how many people we can help rise out of poverty. we believe that the good, decent, hard-working citizens of this republic. these are the facts. the case is in your hands. god bless you, god bless our troops, and god bless america. >> today, our coverage continues with remarks from president obama and a campaign rally in milwaukee. it is exactly one month before early voting begins at the wisconsin, a state he won in 2008. to the rally alive today at 6 -- 6:40 eastern. right after that, first lady michelle obama delivers her remarks at the congressional black caucus foundation awards
5:24 pm
dinner here in washington. her remarks start life at 7:30 eastern, also on c-span. >> tonight, first lady michelle obama i just as the congressional black caucus legislative conference. -- addresses the congressional black caucus legislative caucus. earlier this week, they look at new voter idea laws and how they could affect minority voters. here's a portion of that discussion. >> i want to take the offer being here. -- thank you all for being here. this battle over voter i.d. and access to the polls is perhaps the most clear case of racial discrimination that we have in the 21st century. that is my premise. you may disagree but i wanted to start there. let me start with you, donna
5:25 pm
brazile. you had been in some of the key states with this stuff has happened. what do you see going on? >> per se the law, it is an honor to be part of this distinguished panel. it is an honor, to be part of this distinguished panel. over the last 12 months, we have seen more than 180 -- a voter i.d. laws introduced in state legislative halls throughout the country. the impact these laws will have -- 17 states have passed restrictive voting laws. 17 that have the potential to impact the 2012 presidential election. these states account for 218 electoral votes. 80% of the electoral votes needed in order to win the presidency. my mother taught me that when you change the will and in the middle of the game, that is called keating. there is no place in our country and our democracy to put onerous
5:26 pm
burdens before the american people to show up at the voting booth having to produce multiple forms of identification. i know the other panelists can add to this -- in 200 when i campaign, myre's own sister who live in florida at the time, have to produce 3 forms of voter i.d. just to get a provisional ballot. i told everybody, not just in my family but throughout this country, that regardless of what they tell you, show with their driver's license, i want to urge everyone to show up with pretty much everything they you can produce. your driver's license, your birth certificate, your voter registration card, anything. and utility. because this fall, we will see
5:27 pm
hurdles we have not seen since 1965. this is something that should bother all of us. dr. martin luther king in 1957 gave one of the best sermons that he ever gate -- give us the ballot. so that we can fill the legislative halls with men and women of goodwill. so we can fill out judicial branches with men and women who serve with mercy. this fall, unfortunately, we are going to have a hard time in some of the state getting the ballot to eligible citizens so they can cast their vote. >> bring that utility bill. it. if you ain't paid [laughter] >> reverend sharpton, we understand the laws are changing but the question here also is does it constitute racial discrimination? i keep people saying why ratio?
5:28 pm
>> it is discrimination because in any number of studies have talked about the disproportionate impact it has on african-americans and latinos. three things that we need to be clear on because of the national action network, we have done about 11 state on voter id with the naacp and urban league. we are not against identification. we are saying have the same might be this year that you had when reagan ran, and clinton ran, and bush ran. people need to be clear. we are not talking about being against aideed. we are against the new restrictive a voter i.d. because we are saying there has been no fraud.
5:29 pm
.0003% cases of fraud. this is a solution looking for a problem. is it a disproportionate impact on us that are black and latino and the elderly. and mentally in orlando -- i am 85 -- a man told me in orlando, item 85, i live 27 miles of where you have to get the restrictive state id. i do not drive, i do not have a passport. he said to do this will cost me $27 and transport to go in. that is a poll tax. we cannot have people with fixed income where they cannot get the id and therefore their vote is denied. according to the brennan institute, it will cost potentially biden and boats.
5:30 pm
-- 5 million votes. 14,000 in virginia. shaving off 100,000 votes could turn this election when you look at congressman john lewis and others that pay the price for us to vote, donna is right. e need to have a two prong strategy. we need to do everything we need to vote this year so where we cannot turn around like ohio and pennsylvania and michigan, we can still vote because it they could take no right to vote and stand up against jim clark and , them what excuse do we have that we cannot couple of ids and go to the poll?
5:31 pm
we cannot be that lazy that we cannot do what we have to do. as much as we are outraged, we need of a strategy that we are therefore going to be proactive and deal with it. i'm with the conservatives. i am a conservative. i am try to conserve the voting rights act. serve theng rtto con civil-rights act. the radicals that have -- that are trying to have a radical departure from what made this country great. we are trying to conserve the country. others are trying to turn the country back and we are not going back. [applause] >> will let our conservative members of the panel, but in theory to be clear, i was teasing. they are old friends of mine. we are grateful to have them on
5:32 pm
the panel. this is a non-partisan caucused designed to come up with issues and answers, rather than to engage in the bitter partisanship that has undermined progress over the last four years. reverend sharpton mentioned the law. i want to acknowledge some of the lawmakers in the room. emanuel cleaver, gwynne moore, andre carson and hank johnson. also carol kilpatrick is in the room. them a round of applause, please? part of what this has become in some ways is an abstract argument. an ideological argument where people are not entirely clear of what is at stake. what i would like you all to talk about is what kind of issues are voters in your district dealing with right now with regard to voting? >> seniority.
5:33 pm
the issue of being able to vote, being able to participate and to a democratic process should not be a partisan issue. the right to vote, the right to participate and cast a vote is precious. almost sacred. people died for this right. people stood in lines. people had to pass a so-called literacy test. they are asked to count the number of jellybeans in a jar. they were black lawyers and doctors, college professors, teachers, ministers, they were
5:34 pm
told they cannot read and write well enough. we thought we solved that issue. with the voting rights act of 1965. and why now during this election year we must fight this issue all over again? some people say why you talk about the past? because if we fail to remember the past, we will repeat the history. we do not want to go back. we want to go forward. that is what we must do. it is not his dissenting. a lot of people think it happened in alabama. -- it is not just a southern thing. a lot of people think it happened in alabama. what is going on in pennsylvania is a disgrace. it is an afront to the voting rights act and to the voting -- and to the democratic process.
5:35 pm
we cannot allow it to happen on our watch. [applause] al will tell you that if we allow what is about to happen in pennsylvania to happen, maybe 700 or 900,000 people will be denied the right to cast a ballot. we cannot let that happen. the only thing i did during this meeting during the 60's -- i give a little blood for the right to vote. i tell you, -- [applause] some of my friends, three yonung men i knew, gave their very lives. and for us, black, white,
5:36 pm
latino, asian, native american, to be silent and not make some noise -- that is why in a few days, some of us are going to march to the polling places to the board of elections and we are going to dramatize the issue once again all across america. we are going to do it and we must do it. [applause] >> congresswoman, what is going on in your district in particular that voters are faced again struggling with regards to the issue? >> i am from ohio which everyone knows is kind of ground zero what is going on. we have a secretary of state to a done everything possible to try to restrict our ability to vote, taking away weekend boating which we had in the
5:37 pm
primary this year. taking away longer hours which we had in a primary this year. has created so many issues but we have taken him to court me basically won most of these battles. what people need to understand is that if we can i get our vote out, this election could change significantly in the state of ohio. our battle is not only to educate schauble on what they need to vote but more importantly -- to educate people on what they need to vote but more importantly, to get out and vote. we now forced our state legislators to do a date -- do away with voter i.d.. in ohio, you can still use your utility bill, your driver's license or any other form of id appropriate. so that is not a problem. our bigger problem is that african-americans have historically voted on the weekends. so they took away began voting.
5:38 pm
churches on sunday would bring buses to the polls on sunday. so they took away sunday voting. we did get sunday voting back the weekend before the election but let me make clear why this is such a major problem. 25% of african-americans lack a photo id. according to the brennan center, we have driver's licenses at half the rate of whites. only 22% of black men 18-24 have a valid driver's license. this is a big deal. not only are minority voters less likely to possess an idea but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for an id. so when people say this does not affect the african-american population, something is amiss in their thinking. when you look at the laws across
5:39 pm
this country, let's just take texas. you can use a hunting license as an official form of id to vote be can i use your student id. now you know who they want to vote in who they do not want to vote. it is very clear that across this country, they are making it easier. if there is fraud in the process, it is absentee. people do not go to the polls and try to pretend to be somebody they are not. so what did not change? absentee. that is the way most people of means and republicans vote. >> so the one that could cause a fraud is the one thing that nobody has touched. >> i say this all the time. we realize that something is important when people try to take it from us. people never try to take
5:40 pm
anything from you that is not important. so understand that if they try to limit our ability to shape our own -- like our own history, we cannot let them do it and we cannot go back. [applause] >> i knew you were going to get to me at some point. i am anxious to hear our friends on the far right and their response on this issue. i do want to talk about north carolina because north carolina illustrates why this is so critically important, the vote and who we vote for. we had a democratic governor. right? a governor who vetoed the voter i.d. law and that has made all
5:41 pm
the difference in north carolina because we still have on the books we have on the books for years ago and eight years ago and 12 years ago and 16 years ago. so we're not dealing with that. i am anxious to hear the response and i know you're going to throw it to the next. i will step -- set the stage for you. when i think of voting rights in addition to john lewis, i think of all of those long lines i saw in south africa. people standing in line, not a single registration was required. the whole idea of acquiring people to register to vote has
5:42 pm
always been un-democratic in my estimation. come on, now. [laughter] [applause] [applause] these are people who were standing and line, have never registered to vote. they were just showing up. this is a basic democratic right. that we should be insisting on. i do not know what all this fuss is about presenting identification. our problem here is not people showing up trying to get the right to vote. our problem is people not showing up and not showing up and try to -- not trying to vote. we ought to be encouraging participation, not doing something to discourage it. >> are you -- advocating a
5:43 pm
system of no registration at all? >> i would but i cannot want to get into that academics at -- discussion. -- but i do not want to get into that academic discussion. we ought not be requiring people to register or be in the state that they vote in. we can track people. inwe can find someboduy pakistan in a hole, we can figure out whether somebody is eligible to vote without them having to march down with a damn utility bill. come on. [applause] >> i did not want people to think you were saying he did not want any kind of tracking since -- tracking system.
5:44 pm
>> can i intervene? i agree with my colleague. it is so important and that everyone should understand what congressman watt is saying. as far back as 1963 that the march on washington, we came up with a slogan -- one person, one vote. and that was the slogan, that was the cry of young people going south in sncc. the only qualification for being able to vote should be age and residence, nothing more and nothing less. and you're going backwards. in a democratic society, we should open up the process and let people come in.
5:45 pm
and not try to keep people out. [applause] >> that is a conservative principle we just did it, i think. >> i am going to go to the experts on that. you all have been hearing this. the first question for me is -- is there any dispute to the idea that this is a clearly rationalized discriminatory policy being implemented now? >> thank you for the invitation to come. i think is a very important discussion that we need that. when i listen and as a student of history and now as a lawyer, i recognized it it were not for the efforts of john lewis and many brave pioneers in the
5:46 pm
civil-rights era, we would not be sitting here today having this discussion. [applause] but as a lawyer and as a student of history, when you ask dr. hill is this a racial as asian -- racialization question, i go back. in 2005, jimmy carter and james baker shared a commission looking at federal election reform. one of the key recommendations each gentleman made was that we must have a federal voter identification card to ensure the integrity of the ballot box in the electoral process. i move forward three years later. in 2008, the supreme court took up this very issue of is it discriminatory to have a voter i.d., does it marginalize people who are less well off and are of
5:47 pm
color and third, does it meet constitutional muster? >this was a 6-3 decision. this was not a biased court. this was a 6-3 opinion written by the hard-core right winger john paul stevens. what they said was that it was constitutional, it was legal and it was proper for indiana to end to a voter i.d. system. it was proper that a republican legislator had decided to enact this and that while democrats complained and said this was an overtly partisan method, the supreme court also said that was part of the lead toure process and that is why citizens wrote to rep to make those decisions. the third day i would come up with is 2012.
5:48 pm
earlier this year, the richmond times dispatch editorial that said i like my crow served medium rare. they noted they had strong opposition to the voter i.d. laws in virginia that was going to the legislative. they thought it racist and they thought it would disproportionately impact people of color. in april, the issue that editorial saying it would like their crow and medium rare because they said virginia did have a problem. there were 10 felons convicted, bound to have voted illegally and also in a statewide report, they found 50 people in virginia who voted illegally. so the richmond times dispatch said that this was not a problem in search of a solution but this was very real. from my perspective,is this racialization? we are all equal in this country
5:49 pm
under the color of law. these rules are designed specifically to allow people to have the confidence and the integrity in the ballot box that has been upheld by the supreme court. so, no, i do not think was a racialization. >> please, let them respond to requests i would like you -- >> please let them respond. i would like you to talk about -- fewer black people have access to the polls. how's that on its face not initialized set of laws? next i want to backtrack a little bit and go today that nobody has mentioned. hat my up knowing tht parents sat at lunch counters.
5:50 pm
the stores have made the woman i am. the fearless woman to have a different opinion to sit here before you and say that i cannot think martin luther king fought for us to be in the year 2012 to be told that blacks cannot, cannot, cannot. i remember my mother telling me what she was a girl, she had to go to a segregated beach and had to sit on this side and watched the white people sun bathe and enjoy the beauty of the ocean and the sun. while she and her family knitted blankets to have a kennedy to protect themselves under. my dad taught me about when he went to the medical college of virginia and was the only black to integrate his in class. he helped his white colleagues study. it got better grades than him. this did not deter my father. he continued and became a great dentist and still practices today. when we were little, my parents
5:51 pm
build their dream home in richmond, virginia. in a subdivision with a thought it would have access to a country club. i was in grade school and my parents were told they could not swim, their kids cannot swim at the pool. it cannot play tennis because they were black. they sued the country club. their case went all the way up to the virginia supreme court. they won. they did not win so we could swim in the pool with the white people did not want us there. they won because -- to teach their children to fight for what is right. so that experience that i had growing up, being told that in the face of adversity i could always achieve, this does not jive with voted id laws. boater id laws are not jim crow because the apply to all of us no matter what our skin color. i want to go back to the brenna
5:52 pm
n stat. 89% of americans in this country have the proper id to vote. whose fault is it that 25% of black americans will not or cannot get an id? whose fault is that? when others seem to get ids. in 2008, when the supreme court ruled on the voter i.d. law in indiana, they found to be constitutional. and after the laws were passed in indiana and georgia, minority participation in the electoral process increased for blacks by 40%. in the georgia in 2010, when the republicans were experiencing a surge, more black voters turned out by 40%. latino and hispanic voter turnout increased by 140%. an american university and
5:53 pm
university of delaware have found that none of the voter i.d. laws that had been passed have deterred people from the polls the matter what the color of their skin. i find it very hard to believe and i'm tired of being talked down to as a black woman and being told what i cannot do. to me, our message needs to be what is wrong with the 11%? they need to get with the game and get an idea to vote because of voter fraud does occur. o -- orado, i 2010, 5000 in 2010, 5000 non-citizens' vote. 217 -- 170 have been found to be fraudulent. 66 of those votes are now being -- crimes are being bought against those people. that minnesota senatorial seat after al franken one, that with
5:54 pm
the vote that decided obamacare prius of fraud does occur. if we checked ids, which we do not dio primarily, and we would know the kind of fraud occurring during >> i have to respond. i will be very -- brief. >> very quickly because we have to move this along. >> i do not know that anyone here said the cannot do something. the question is why should we? we thought this battle 40 years ago brought to market >> why shouldn't we? >> no one here is not saying we cannot. all of us have overcome something in our lives. that is not the issue. we fought for equality and justice in a long time ago. if we do not stand up for it
5:55 pm
now, our children and grandchildren will be fighting for it. >> how is it -- >> you race whose fault it is? my grandmother's birth certificate is my bible. she does not have the person depicted. it is in the bible. these young people that live in cities like new york do not even drive to widen the driver's license? they take public transportation. disabled people do not drive. why do they need an id? we have to look at who has been singled out in this process. it is students, poor people, the elderly, the disabled. people who historically voted democratic. >> i will have to paul that and let reverend sharpton respond. -- to pause that and let reverend sharpton respond. >> we can have different opinions but we cannot have different facts.
5:56 pm
[applause] >> where were my facts wrong? >> i did not interrupt you one time. >> you implied. >> the indiana case the supreme court ruled was not the same id law that you're dealing with in pennsylvania and other states. you are acting as though that one case is a uniform id law. we have state by state different laws. texas has one, pennsylvania another, ohio another one. if in fact they had the national federal id law, you could say that. we are talking about different states, different laws. and we should not act as though the supreme court ruling said that -- a fact is a texas federal court just said it is
5:57 pm
discriminatory, the ideals of the put in texas in 2012. that is one. that is a fact. [applause] secondly, when we talk about people that were foreigners voting, that has nothing to do with people that are american- born. saying that somebody fraudulently voted, id laws would not protect that. you are mixing apples and oranges. to say why doesn't 11% hav their id -- why change the rules of the game in the 5th inning? [applause] when you change these state laws, the game was already on for this election. we are not talking about changing something later. we are talking about changing
5:58 pm
something now. people cannot now that the devil did in the last election and many did. that is changing the game mid game. do not plan people for not being prepared for a game they changed the rules. if we are having a 12 round fight and in the middle, yard or to change it to an eight round fight, you have shaved off four rounds. were youl me why not prepared? why did you change the game? [applause] >> i want to echo -- reverend sharpton and, i did bring a couple of facts. 2011, only two states passed onerous voter restrictions. we are now up to 41 states. the problem is proof of
5:59 pm
citizenship. in some states you have to show other proof of citizenship. those laws are changing state by state. only one state, to my knowledge, virginia, has issued a voter identification to residents who do not have all the other forms of id that are required to get a non-drivers license permit. in my home state of louisiana, you have to show up with all the proof of citizenship. has anyone ever heard of hurricane katrina and what happened? i can have a pity party but the fact is you have to not only show up with all of these proof of citizenship but you have to have $39.50. here's the problem with 11% of the american people without proof of id -- many of them do
6:00 pm
not have the resources or anyone who can drive them to the local dmw to get the proper form of id. [applause] >> i promise to be both a chance to respond. we have people joining us by google hangout in 6 cities. [applause] 3 of them have questions. i want you all to jump in and answer the questions. >> first, i am a ph.d. candidate
6:01 pm
at texas a&m university. [applause] i question is for mr. wright and mr. christie. >> ago ahead. >> their recent court decision in texas block the new law that would require id for voters. prior to this ruling, someone could use a gun license to vote but i would not be able to use my student id. my question first is do you think this ruling provide equal opportunity for minority voters? second, if it was not upheld, would it be fair that a gun owner would be able to use his id but i would not be able to use mine?
6:02 pm
>> that is a good question. that is right in the rhythm of what we are talking about. >> let me address this. this is an excellent question. i think the indiana supreme court case that paved the way to allow states to craft their own voter i.d. laws. i have a lot of problems with the state of texas and what they tried to do. it is true that they have convicted 50 people of voter fraud in the last couple of people. but have looked at the statute and i have looked at the burden. for one, texas, unlike many of the other states, requires you to pay a certain amount of money to receive this id. i think that is wrong. i think it should be free if the state is going to require you to have it. the state of texas has put a system in place where the voter i.d. office is only open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and it is not open on the weekend. this is an impact on people and
6:03 pm
it makes it difficult for people to get an id. is to be a mobile system. third, they say there is no one can agree and we cannot see that anyone has been harmed by this. one gentleman would have to drive three hours in one direction to go to an office and three hours to drive back. he could not take off from his job. i do not agree with this law. >> this is part of our lightning round. >> i do agree. >> jump on in. i think we need to make our response is a little shorter and to make sure that everyone in the panel gets to respond. >> what is shorter than "we agree"?
6:04 pm
>> what we did not talk about is that many of the state's offer free id and the also offered transportation for her elderly people. sunday in the's are being used for voter i.d.. but with -- some states -- some dmv's are being used for voter i.d. in virginia, they mailed out voter i.d. to everyone and they are not photo id. i find it hard to believe -- and with the free id, i am still not going -- i have a problem with the way the debate is being
6:05 pm
framed as racial. i know that when black americans want to travel or by over-the- counter drugs are by prescriptions or go to boo allbs -- you can you want to -- but we can all find an id. more americans need to engage in the electoral process. let me finish. >> we need to move on. >> you are right. we all have multiple forms of id. but it is a specific type of id. i cannot go with my sam's club or costco club. you have to have big government- issued photo id. >> some states allow medicare and medicaid as acceptable forms of voter i.d. we can have a national -- if we
6:06 pm
have a national voter ideologue, fine, but we don't. and right now, the states have the right to do this. going back to rev. sharpton is common, the last time i looked, the supreme court is the law of the land. so when texas and these other states have been denied or take their cases to the supreme court, they will look at in been in -- look at indiana. it was a majority of six-3 and they will say it is precedent. and indiana has free voter i.d.. >> they decided in the indiana case that it was constitutional for them to establish id. they did not say that all of those states could subsequently -- >> let me finish. because you misrepresent -- >> no, no, no. you misrepresented -- >> they will look at the indiana
6:07 pm
case as president. 30 states have voter i.d. laws on the books before barack obama became president. >> timeout. here's what i will do. everybody, hold on. i am calling a new time out. i submit -- i suspect that reverend sharpton and crystalline not going to agree by the time we leave here. -- and crystal are not going to agree by the time we leave here. i will give each of you 30 seconds to respond. >> would be one it to respond to? >> you were trying to assert a
6:08 pm
point. >> no, i'm done. >> ok, or run sharpton. >> the supreme court decision that indiana had the right to set laws did not say that, therefore, the other states' laws are not discriminatory, and you cannot have a supreme court decision and say that everything they do is constitutional. >> that is not what i said. crystal, you have had -- >> the supreme court decision has nothing to do with the laws we are arguing now. these laws are subsequent to that decision. >> ok, now you get your 30 seconds. >> what i said is that, the supreme court as it sets real cases, it sets a precedent.
6:09 pm
so if florida decides to appeal -- and we are sure that state id laws will go to the united states supreme court opinion they will look at the indiana case as president. president means that indiana applies to all of the other states. that is not what i said. >> that is what you said. >> we have to put a pause there for a little bit. >> we spent an enormous amount of time on photo i.d. and that is a very big issue. but there is another issue, which is early voting. voter registration campaigns, absentee voting, those rules have also changed. we need to make sure that, before we leave here, we know all the changes that have been made in the middle of the game over the last few months so that every american is prepared to go
6:10 pm
to the polls with the knowledge and information they need so they can cast their ballot and hopefully have their ballots counted. >> absolutely. >> i just want to make a distinction so everybody is clear because we have heard all of this stuff about identification is required for this and that could last time i checked, there was no constitutional right to drive a car. to go to a nightclub. to do all of these things that you all are talking about. there is a basic democratic right to vote. to lump all this together is missing the point in my opinion. >> i want to go back to where our hang out here in they have a wonderful question coming up. welcome.
6:11 pm
>> my name is danny. from chicago, illinois. i am a senior staff at the asian american -- according to the u.s. census bureau, about 32% of asian-americans have limited english. so getting the voter i.d. we're talking about now is difficult to get into thousand six, the congressional black caucus working with the asian-pacific american caucus and the hispanic caucus help pass the reauthorization of the new voter rights act. limiting voting to english zoning -- to english only is something that was attempted.
6:12 pm
through coalition building, the congressional black caucus has done good work and there's still a long way to go. in what way can the african- american community continue to work with other communities to increase access to voting for all americans, including new americans with limited english ability, both latino and asian americans? thank you. >> let me respond because i want to agree with the questioner. john lewis, in the reauthorization of the voting rights act, he was off the charts in advocating for this kind of equality. and he gave us the credibility we needed and historical credibility we needed to really drive home when how important this was. and we address this english- language thing in the voting rights act by requiring voting
6:13 pm
jurisdictions to print their ballots in different languages. that is a basic provision of the voting rights act. as opportunities present themselves, we will continue to avail ourselves of opportunities to coalesce with not only african-americans, but hispanics, asian-americans, disabled, elderly, people who really don't -- who really have challenges complying with these ideologues, bidding to the polls -- getting to the polls. we think that voting is such a basic part of our democracy that this is absolutely critical. we need to be clearing out all of these obstacles not putting
6:14 pm
more obstacles in the way. >> congressman lewis, i wanted to go to parlay for a historical perspective but also for the question. when i hear that question, i think of the victories of the civil rights movement. mr. have a civil rights movement right now. but when you think about 1965, you think about the gains that black folks achieved for themselves. but there were also gains for other people. it seems to me that come in the struggle, we see the same thing. -- it seems to me that, in this struggle, we see the same thing. women are getting access, linguistic minorities are getting access, and this is where black folk are helping the nation. >> i have been sitting here thinking and contemplating and
6:15 pm
it makes me sort of sad, really, that we are having this discussion all these many years later, that we are fighting the same battles that we thought we had one, thought were behind us. maybe another generation had to go through the same thing. but the coalition was about conscious. it was not just about black folks. maybe lincoln did free the slaves, but the civil rights movement helped create a nation. [applause] that is what we must continue to do. that is why the loyal -- that is why i love the members of the black caucus. when we stand up and fight, we're not just fighting alone.
6:16 pm
we really tried to believe. i have really been trying to be non-violent today. [laughter] we really truly believe -- >> live to mill what your president obama is holding a rally. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
6:17 pm
>> its is good to be back in milwaukee! [cheers and applause] first of all, it is good to be back because this is the closest i have been to home in a couple of months. i was thinking about helping out in the freeways. i have a little shorter with the motorcade. i am also glad to be in milwaukee because, before i came out here, i was able to have an outstanding sampling of bratwurst.
6:18 pm
[cheers and applause] i am also glad to be here because i get to see some great friends, like your mayor who is in the house. [cheers and applause] your outstanding senator, herb kohl. and your next united states senator, tammy baldwin. [cheers and applause] and, just to prove that i am determined to bring everyone together in moving this country forward, i am proud to have a couple of green bay packers in the house. [cheers and applause]
6:19 pm
we have your michael finley. we have desmond bishop. and they were pointing out the results of the most recent years-packers game. all i could say to them is that it is a long season. we will play you a couple of more times. but we are all here. and we are not bears fans first or packers fans first. we are americans first. [cheers and applause]
6:20 pm
unless you have been hiding under a rock or your television is busted, you probably know that we have an election going on. i recently heard a story. my campaign managers talking with this couple who had a 4- year-old. they saw a picture of me. the dad said, who is that, sammy? and the little boy said, that is barack obama. and he said, what does barack obama do? and the little boy said, he proves that message. [laughter] [applause] so that is what i do. i approve this message. and that is because, when you
6:21 pm
heard mark up here talking -- give mark a big round of applause for the job he did. [applause] what you heard from mark is that we have a very big choice to make in this election and is not just between two candidates and two parties. it is a choice between two different paths for america, two different points of view. my opponent believes in top-down economics. [booing] >> don't boo. vote. [cheers and applause] but he thinks that, if we just spend another $5 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest
6:22 pm
americans, all our problems will go away. and prosperity will rain down on everyone. deficits will magically disappear. and it will all end happily ever after. but there is a problem with that. we tried what they are selling. we tried it for a decade. it did not work then and iit won't work now. [applause] this country does not succeed when only a very few do well. america succeeds when working families do well. when middle class folks do well. when folks working hard to get into the middle class do well. when everybody has a chance to get ahead. that is when we do well. [cheers and applause] we cannot move forward if we
6:23 pm
write off half the nation, calling them a bunch of victims who will never take responsibility for their lives. i do not see a lot of victims here today. i see hard working wisconsinites. i see students trying to work their way through college. i see single moms putting in overtime to make sure their kids have a shot. i see senior citizens who have been sitting their entire lives for their retirement. -- who have been saving their entire lives for their retirement. i see the trends -- we see veterans today appeared we don't believe government should help folks who do not try to help themselves. but we do believe in something
6:24 pm
called opportunity. we believe that coming in this country, hard work should pay off and everybody should get a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same roles. that is the country we believe then and that is why i am running for a second term as president. [cheers and applause] [chanting] >> wisconsin, the truth is that the path i am offering will not be quick. it won't be easy. it will take a few years to
6:25 pm
solve challenges that have been built up over decades. but i want everyone here to understand there is no problem we cannot solve. there is no challenge we cannot meet. because we have the best workers in the world. we have the best businesses in the world. we have the best scientists and the researchers in the world. we have the best colleges and universities in the world. we have this incredible diversity of talent, which is why people want to come here from every corner of the globe. there's not a country on earth that would not trade places with the united states. but we will have to work hard to achieve that potential. that is why i put forward a practical plan to create jobs and grow the middle class and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation. it starts by exporting more products without exporting our jobs.
6:26 pm
my opponent wanted to let detroit go bankrupt. [booing] >> don't boo. >> vote! >> we decided to reinvent the auto industry and put it back on top of the world. [applause] what we did for autos, we want to do for manufacturing across the board. we want to create half a million new manufacturing jobs. and now, all we have to do is stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. that's given to companies that are right here in milwaukee, right here in wisconsin. that is how we move forward. [applause] let's help big companies and small businesses double their
6:27 pm
exports. we can create 1 million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years. but it requires you to vote. it requires all of us to do our part. i want us to control our own energy. after 30 years of not doing anything, we raised fuel standards so that, by the middle of the next decade, your car will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. [applause] have doubled the amount of renewable energy we are generating and thousands of americans have jobs today building wind turbines and batteries. we are dependent on less for nile than any time -- foreign oil than any time in our history. they want the oil companies write the energy plan.
6:28 pm
[booing] don't boo. >>vote! >> we have a better plan. we want to produce oil and natural gas, but we also want to invest in wind and solar and clean coal. we want to bring farmers and scientists together to harvest new biofuels. we want to put construction workers back to work. building homes and factories that use and waste less energy. we want to develop a hundred- year supply of natural gas. we want to cut our imports in half by 2020. we can do it, but i will need your help. i need you to vote. [applause] i want to make sure that we have the best education system.
6:29 pm
[cheers and applause] i wouldn't be standing here unless i got a great education, and it was the gateway of opportunity for me and for michelle and for so many of you. that is why we fought so hard to make sure that millions of students are paying less for college because we still had a system that was wasting billions of dollars. [applause] my opponent, who wants to gut our investments in education to give tax breaks to the wealthy -- [booing] don't boo. >> vote! >> i have a different vision. i believe that in the united states of america, no child states of america, no child should have to

Former National Security Advisers
CSPAN September 22, 2012 3:45pm-6:30pm EDT

Series/Special. Brent Scowcroft, Stephen Hadley and James Jones discuss their perspectives on America's role in the world. New.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 30, United States 19, America 16, Syria 16, U.s. 14, Pakistan 12, Texas 10, China 10, Virginia 9, Sharpton 7, Libya 7, Asia 7, Afghanistan 5, Iraq 5, Obama 5, Washington 5, Pennsylvania 5, Assad 5, Steve 4, Milwaukee 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 02:45:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 9/22/2012